"Banned members amnesty" Topic

Over the past 15 years we've lost many good members, either rage quitting or banned.

I really miss Kevin Kiley's input from the banned.

Yup! Kevin was OK in my books. Even though we went back about 15 years in lively contretemps, I would never have had him banned or stifled. He may be an old, knackered warhorse but he's a warhorse nevertheless…

Mr. Kiley is a well-published author in English, focussing on the French. I recall most of the "lost" members as being history/uniform- focussed, not so-much miniature/modelling/game/rule-focussed.

If we are to make special pleading for specific individuals ….

I regret the loss of Mssrs. Steven H Smith (who has forgotten more about the Napoleonic era than I will ever learn), Jonathan Gingerich (a very careful researcher who always tried to publish his results in some free forum or open website) and David Hollins (who is one of best-informed authors in English on the Austrian military of the era).

I am quite thankful that some real experts on German-speaking armies still contribute here. I think especially of @von Winterfeldt, Oliver Schmidt and Markus Stein.

Since we are naming names, I would make an appeal for Supercilius Maximus who was so knowledgeable concerning the AWI. His knowledge and expertise when it came to uniforms and flags was invaluable. However, we are all assuming they all want to return.

And that the rest of us would stick around if this site, which is one of the few specifically dedicated to miniature gaming, goes back to endless angry debates over trivial points of language, meaning and interpretation, fueled by irrelevant personal antagonisms.

If you want that, go to Reddit; if you want traffic, post some T&A. But for what most people come for, the flame wars are just an annoying distraction, particularly when you inadvertently start one with an innocent question. Like I said earlier: people were banned for a reason. It was behavioral, and arguments that it will be different this time around assume changes that are not evident. Even if their knowledge is useful, when they spend their time in continual argument over trivial points of disagreement, none of us benefits from it, anyway.

Michman

The suggestion for a banned members amnesty would be for all banned members.

Nine pound round

What may have appeared trivial to one, may not be so to others. And if some members got involved in a 'flame war', as you term it, then that is their choice. No one had to get involved or even read their posts. Too many people seemed to get upset over something they were not involved in, as if they 'had' to read certain posts! LOL But it is quite easy to ignore posts, not get involved or respond to them, if they 'upset' you. Just enjoy the informative posts and appreciate the knowledge members are kind enough to share.

4th Cuirassier

I think we all come here to 'pass the time', but in a nice, enjoyable and informative way. We also come here to learn.

I don't believe people came here 'just to argue' either. Perhaps that is someone wanting to see it as that because someone dared to argue against their viewpoint or opinion? Just a thought.

And if someone did not 'change their mind', it does not make them an 'ignorant fanatic'. It suggests more that whoever was trying to 'change their mind' failed to do so, possibly due to offering weak, incorrect or biased opinions and viewpoints. It is right to question people's viewpoints and their reasoning for them. But we have to remember that, thankfully, we are not all the same or think the same.

I suggest you reach out to the people you want back, and ask them to drop an email to gwen@theminiaturespage.com mentioning that they are ready to come back and obey all forum rules.

@Editor in Chief Bill
Are you at liberty to tell us what Messrs Kiley, Smith, Gingerich and Hollins did to get banned?
Or did they just stop posting because TMP wasn't worth it?

Editor in Chief Bill

I don't have the addresses of all those who were banned. That's why I suggested the amnesty idea. I was hoping the website would contact them. But never mind, hopefully, banned members will contact the site and be welcomed back.

Allan F Mountford

It would be helpful to know why they were banned, in order to prevent other members from, perhaps unknowingly, make the same mistake and ending up banned.

But if the site accept banned members back, without providing the info of why they were banned, then that will have to do. I'm sure having them back will be good for the site itself and for those of us who love military history and wargaming.

Nine pound round – excellent points. Just as we don't know who will leave if there is a return to big flame wars, we don't know who drifted away previously. I know that I tired of it, especially when those arguing didn't even seem to wargame, but although work is keeping me busy, I do enjoy reading some of the threads for pleasure now.

I did once suggest splitting Napoleonic history away from the wargaming board (it's not as though there's a shortage), but things seem much quieter, although there are some posters I miss. I don't think we should underestimate the ageing process in observing changing behaviours, nor the social isolation that can come with it, without even considering how Covid has impacted us all too.

The fact is though that there's a difference between people who get banned after one incident and those repeat offenders who are given chance after chance to tone it down. I really don't see the value in bringing them back, especially if you adopt Gazzola's proposal of a blanket invite. I'm sure some would see that as a pardon rather than an amnesty.

So, Gazzola, I am against a blanket amnesty, as others have also stated. I'm really not sure where you got the idea that no one was against it, judging by the immediate responses to you. If banned members want to rejoin, then by all means email the editors. Just don't act surprised if they're kept on a shorter leash or reported more easily than others. If they see that approach as begging, that's up to them.

Hard No to a blanket amnesty. Any one who was banned has always had the ability to petition Bill or any of the editors for reinstatement.

But it seems to date none has done so.

And I don't miss the pissing contests or the snide "sources?"

@Gazzola
Two of us on the same page then ;-)
As an aside, click on 'Napoleonic Discussion Message Board' and search under 'Steven H Smith'. There are hundreds of search results covering a huge range of what I consider are the most interesting subjects in the last 10 years or so.

I thought it might be helpful if we all knew why members were banned and have the opportunity to agree or disagree with the decision?

I also suggested a blanket amnesty to be fair to all banned members.

And surely, the dawghouse is enough 'punishment' for any 'rule' breaking? I still feel that a longer dawghouse sentence would be preferable to an outright ban?

I also felt that an amnesty would attract banned members to return, rather than them having to ask and run the risk of being rejected. I mean, it is a website about wargaming and military history, it is not a political forum that might bring a government down or start a real war! LOL

Gazzola, on the issue of a blanket amnesty I'm afraid we're unlikely to find common ground.

Firstly, there are a number of spam accounts – over the years this must number thousands. I wouldn't expect staff to wade through a list, identifying which may or may not be spam.

Secondly, even if we're talking about real people, a blanket amnesty is in no way fair to all. Some people have been banned after one infraction, others after years of being repeatedly suspended for the same behaviour.

Whilst posters such as Kevin did have a degree of knowledge, his condescending tone, often when he was demonstrably wrong and his wall of cut and paste 'arguments' increasingly outweighed the positives. One of the purposes of these boards is to learn and Kevin rarely seemed interested in that, even though historical research into this era had moved on considerably since the days of Elting.

There are others, some named above, who were far more positive in their contributions, but they all have the option of emailing Bill.

La Belle Ruffian

Yes, you already stated in a previous post that you were against a blanket amnesty. But perhaps you just don't want certain members to return? And your viewpoint on certain members is not supported by everyone. Perhaps that's the problem, some people just don't want and can't cope with their viewpoints being challenged?

If these boards are here for people to learn, as you state, then all members should 'learn' to accept that people will not always agree or be swayed by whatever viewpoints are posted. Historical research may have moved on but that does not mean that it is always correct or that the interpretation of said research should only be seen in one way.

I believe everyone should be given a second chance. A blanket amnesty would offer this. And perhaps those banned have no idea they can contact the editor to request a return? And of course, if anyone falls out of line and breaks whatever rules etc, they can always be banned again.

As I've said before, this is a wargaming website. No wars or real deaths are going to be caused by a blanket amnesty. Unless someone is so scared of their viewpoints being challenged, of course. LOL

I agree with La Belle Ruffian and why should staff waster their time to search for banned members? Since the absence of Brechtel – harldy any dawghousing or banning on the Napoleonic boards. Also I cannot see any decline in the quality of the contributions.

Gazzola, if we're talking about members who've repeatedly broken the rules, been suspended multiple times but offered not just a second, but third, fourth, fifth chance and more, yet have shown no acknowledgement of their negative impact or any sign of changing their behaviour to post within the rules, then you're right. I don't see the benefit of their being giving yet another chance with no effort on their part.

The question is, why do you think they should?

You talk about them perhaps wanting to contribute and suggesting that asking Bill would be beneath them. Given how much more pleasant the boards have been to read, what benefit would their return bring for the members here? Surely you don't believe that the application of rules should be based on popularity?

There is a system in place, which Bill has endorsed, whereby any banned members can petition for a return. It's available to all who ask and I assume that would involve some promise of staying within the rules in future. If they are not logged in then they should be able to read this.

That seems like the best option to me. If you feel your friend is above that rule, then just be honest and say so, then explain why.

Concur. Among the many compelling arguments against amnesty in this thread, the best is "amnesty will be treated as a pardon," and so we'll get not just the people, but the objectionable behavior.

They have a route back now if they want it. Let them exercise it, should they so desire.

about second chances, I hardly can remember a case when people were banned after one dowghousing, otherwise this forum would be empty, all had plenty of chances to change and to stick to the rules, some couldn't and others wouldn't.

I don't stifle people for having a different view, only for being cretins. I'd be surprised if a blanket amnesty caused the quality of banned members' thinking to improve.

I am suddenly realizing that a lot of informative people ended up banned. I presume not for their knowledge but their behavior. I miss some of these guys too, but it's up to them. No public mass amnesty. If you want amnesty, talk to Bill, and know that a number of people appreciated your expertise.

There would be no need for the staff to contact anyone. Just take off the ban. Then if they want back in they can start posting. No need to contact them. They will figure it out their own. Assuming they want to come back.

Nine pound round

One mans flame war is another mans informative and entertaining discussion. Like Bill says if you don't want to read the post then don't click on it. Set to ignore or stifle.

Nobody gets dawghoused or banned for "informative or entertaining discussion." As has been said previously, if people want to come back, they can ask forgiveness. I am opposed to an amnesty that will take the site back to where it was in the pandemic, with a lot of people wanting nothing more than an oppprtunity to work out their irrelevant personal issues on a public forum.

"Nobody gets dawghoused or banned for "informative or entertaining discussion."

Again your definition of "informative or entertaining discussion" differs from mine and others. The only opinion that matters is Bills.

"…back to where it was in the pandemic…"

Are you expecting another pandemic anytime soon? If so will we refer to your list of people that should be banned?

Well, yes, it clearly does. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I have a "list of people that should be banned," but I will leave you with your non sequitur and go take that advice about the stifle key.

Interesting that some people against a banned amnesty have said they resort to the stifle button? Why worry about what may happen if banned members return if you are supposedly using the stifle? LOL

Seems to be some people are just plain scared of some members returning and will never accept their biased opinions being challenge. Shame on them.

That's a ridiculous assertion.

Gazzola, you are one of those people who simply can't comprehend why people don't think like you do. And, if they don't think like you, there is obviously something wrong with them. Why is it so hard to comprehend that there are people who don't agree with your proposal?

Gazzola, all opinions by their very nature are biased, however much we try to be impartial. I'm not sure the insult you apparently intended hit home as you imagined.

Anyway, when you challenged my opinion on an amnesty, I responded and answered your question. Would you mind doing me the courtesy of answering mine? Why do you think the rules and processes shouldn't apply to people who repeatedly flout them?

Old Contemptible:

'The only opinion that matters is Bill's.'

Quite. He has a huge list of rules for participation.

It doesn't matter whether you see an informative and/or entertaining thread (note, there are threads from time to time with lots of entertainment and little information), or someone else sees a flame war. This is not a 'free-fire zone' and Bill has chosen to implement policies for participation on his site. People are usually banned for insulting others or spam.

If he chooses to suspend or ban someone (or not) for repeated infractions of the many rules on this site, that's his choice. If he wishes to allow someone to return after a petition, that is his choice too.

Perhaps your time lecturing others on how to use the stifle button would be better spent petitioning Bill to remove all the rules regarding abusing others? Keeping the spam one at least would be worth it.

EDIT: to add, I don't have anyone on stifle or ignore, because it's about behaviour rather than the entirety an individual. If I see repetitive walls of text or particularly, needless insults, I'll draw attention to it in the thread and if nothing changes then I will report. At that point, it's up to Bill.

I quite like this bank of rules:

Someone sent me a mean PM. Can I file a complaint?
Generally, the best thing to do with a "nastygram" is to simply delete it.
But it's a really mean PM.
If you really insist, I'll take a look at it. If someone is making a habit of sending obscene or threatening Personal Messages, their PM privileges may be revoked.
Someone keeps sending me unwanted PMs.
Send them a polite PM asking them to stop.
Someone told me to stop PMing them, but I really want to talk to them.
Sorry – if they've asked you not to contact them, then leave them alone.
Can I send someone a provocative, insulting PM, and end by telling them never to reply?
No, that is just dumb. If you do that, as far as we are concerned, they can ignore your request and reply anyway.

It says something that it needs to exist in the first place.

It's kind of ironic that the pro-amnesty argument is devolving into the kind of behavior that got so many people banned in the first place.

It increasingly looks like the point is not to bring back people who have learned their lesson and to enhance the level of knowledge and interest on the forum, but rather to return to the insults, goat-getting and general rudeness that previously prevailed.

Your posts do not make a very persuasive case that the level of discourse will be improved by an amnesty.

@ Nine Pound Round

It increasingly looks like the point is…to return to the insults, goat-getting and general rudeness that previously prevailed.

Quite. Who needs it? My stance on this has always been that, if I wanted to hear from an a*hole I would f*rt.

It's kind of ironic that the pro-amnesty argument is devolving into the kind of behavior that got so many people banned in the first place.

Not really ironic or surprising. If you don't understand why ad hominem attacks are inappropriate (usually only against "the wrong" people), then you are likely to engage in that behaviour yourself.

Fundamental Attribution Error is also usually mixed in. You tripped on the sidewalk because you are a klutz. I tripped on the same sidewalk because it needs repaired.

Put the two together and you get – I disagree with your statement because I have a legitimate, ad hominem criticism. You disagree with me because you are afraid and a hater.

Be careful what you wish for. We appear to again have a very voluble contributor – and my stifled post count has shot up. It was nice while it lasted.

Indeed…

indeed …

indeed …

I am pleased to report that one person has contacted Editor Gwen, and has been reinstated to membership.

unfortunately it is neither Dave Hollins, nor un ami, or Chuvak, or Stephen Smith.

See Gazzola, the system works? The untraceable banned, after a year or more, whether in their home, trekking across the Andes or on Elba, are able to happen upon this thread. Serendipity itself.

And not all of them appear to view asking to be reinstated as begging to return, as you suggested. LOL.

p.s. Whilst, disagreeing with the suggestion, I admire your determination in lobbying for an amnesty for the remaining banned members and look forward to your response to my question.

La Belle Ruffian

Firstly, you need to stop believing you know what I think. You don't! I have never stated that those who break the site's rules should not face whatever punishment the site decides they deserve. My suggestion was to offer an amnesty for those banned. Give them another chance, so to speak. But obviously some people don't feel the same. Fine, everyone has a right to their own opinion.

My posts were not meant to be insulting. Just my opinion on an amnesty, which, judging by the various posts, some members obviously do not want to happen. But, of course, it is not up to them, it is up to Bill and those running the site. It was only a suggestion, in that it be open to anyone who was banned, and not just certain members that people might think I favoured over others.

In terms of answering your question, I thought it was obvious that a blanket amnesty would not attract cries of favouritism! LOL And perhaps you are aware of all the banned members and the reasons they were banned, I do not. But in my opinion, as far as I am aware, no one has to read every post or reply to them, so if a post annoys or upsets them, they don't have to respond or read further posts by whoever posted them. They can run to the stifle. LOL

If you or anyone felt insulted, I apologise. But I was merely pointing that some members against the idea of an amnesty use the stifle anyway, so what were they worried about. LOL

Nine pound round

How you can you tell if anything would improve or not, if banned members are not allowed back? LOL

Perhaps people who hide behind the stifle should be banned? LOL (a joke before anyone throws a wobbler)

Von Winterfeldt has just proved my point! LOL

Judging by his post, he must be in contact with the members he has mentioned so perhaps someone can suggest he inform them they can contact the editor to ask if they can return. I'm sure they'd all be welcome, eh?

I'd ask VW myself but I think he has me on stifle?. LOL

Apology accepted Gazzola. Now that you have conceded aversion to an amnesty from some of us is about the idea itself, progress may be made.

As for VW, I don't see anything to suggest that *he* is contact with banned members, purely his noting that one member had already put in a request to the editorial team and it had obviously been granted as they were posting. Obviously time will tell if any others apply, but so far only one has; toot sweet, as they say, faster than a mobilised Marie Louise.

I'm afraid I'm still unclear on one matter though. Now you've accepted that actions have consequences and that the stifle should not be the only option, are you still arguing for an amnesty or are you stopping now?